participation of the accused in the death of MRTA members Peceros Pedraza, Meléndez Cueva, Villoslada Rodríguez and Rojas Fernández.235 191. The CSJM War Chamber decided on October 15, 2003 to dismiss the case of crimes of human rights violations, abuse of authority and murder, “as there was no evidence to support the commission of the crime under investigation.”236 It held, in this regard: […] the Armed Forces having taken on the task of ensuring […] control of domestic order, […] the intervention by the military commandos can qualify as an act that occurred in a zone under declared state of emergency, and the events were therefore the consequence of acts of service or duty, and any illegal action that may have derived from the exercise thereof qualifies as an in-service crime, as there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the duty and any alleged offenses, and the military criminal justice system, in view of the standards set forth in […] the Constitution of Peru, must apply in the presence of the following requirements: (a) the accused were military personnel on duty at the time, (b) they acted in the discharge of duties assigned as part of a military operation, (c) the discipline and protection of the values that underlie military life are themselves the legally protected right in question, and (d) the facts being alleged are criminalized under Articles 94, 107, 109 and 180 of the code of military justice; that the events […] occurred as the result of a confrontation between the commandos […] and a subversive group […] organized and fitted out as a military force […] in a clash with the features of a military encounter, in which both sides experienced death and injury and where the conditions necessary for legitimate defense must come under analysis, along with the circumstances surrounding the confrontation, the dangerous nature of the subversive agents who were equipped with gear and weapons of war […] and who at all times displayed the kind of belligerent attitude common in terrorist groups, and in which the lives of the hostages were seriously endangered, […] as Carlos Giusti Acuña and two other participating commandos had already died, and several hostages and commandos were seriously wounded, all of which reveals that the clash was severe […], so that any objective assessment must examine the conditions necessary to safeguard the physical integrity and lives of the hostages[…]; […] that the claims of extrajudicial execution […] are based only on a sworn statement by […] Hidetaka Ogura […], that these assertions have not been verified or recorded by the declarant in the courts […]; […] the commandos […] acted in legitimate defense of human life and in strict compliance with their service duties as protected by the Constitution […]; […] due to the nature of the event, it is impossible to know with certainty which of the many gunshots caused the death of each MRTA member, and even less, who fired it; that this being the case, there is no evidence of the commission of the crimes of human rights violation, abuse of authority and murder of the MRTA agents, as the deaths of the rebels took place in the midst of the confrontations, and it has not been demonstrated that the alleged executions occurred, given the absence from the case files of incontrovertible, reliable evidence to demonstrate the contrary, particularly since the events took place in a setting of fighting and cross fire […]; […] that the most conscientious and complete expert reports on the thanatological studies of the bodies […] were performed more than four years after the events took place, and Cf. Final report 008-2nd Sec- V.I. CSJM, June 6, 2003 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 21 to the State’s answering brief, folios 12079 to 12108), and expanded final report 014-2nd Sec-V.I. CSJM of the investigating judge, August 21, 2003 (evidence file, volume XXIV, helpful evidence, folios 17523 to 17526). 235 Ruling by the War Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, October 15, 2003 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 21 to the State’s answering brief, folio 12143 to 12121). 236